23 Hanover Square, London, W1S 1JB general@djblaw.co.uk Tel: 020 7870 7500 COMMON LAND AND VILLAGE GREEN UPDATE - SEPTEMBER 2016 By Richard Snape DAVITT JONES BOULD
ABOUT DJB Established in 1999, Davitt Jones Bould is now one of the largest niche firm of real estate lawyers in the UK. DJB s clients receive a fabulous service benefiting from their own dedicated Account Manager to ensure that the service they receive is on time, on price and totally meets their needs. DJB is entirely focused on real estate. Covering commercial property, planning and other related areas we have one of the most experienced teams of solicitors in the country with a total of over 700 years PQE. DJB does not use paralegals to undertake legal work. We act for a diverse range of clients in the real estate sector spanning many industries and our client base includes some of the most significant landowners and occupiers in the country. Handling any size of property transaction or planning project, the team is comprised of City trained and highly regarded lawyers that operate from the firm s offices in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Taunton. The firm enjoys top tier rankings in all of the main directories and is a winner of the Lawyer Awards. OUR CREDENTIALS LEGAL 500 London: Real Estate: Commercial Property, Property Litigation and Planning North West: Commercial Property South West: Real Estate: Commercial Property, Planning, Property Litigation, Local Government CHAMBERS UK London: Real Estate South West: Real Estate, Planning, Property Litigation INDUSTRY AWARDS 2016 Amercian Lawyer Legal Awards - Global Finance Deal of the Year Honoree 2013 Lawyer Awards Boutique Firm National Winner 2013 Lawyer Awards Real Estate Team 2 nd Calm, professional and very friendly a pleasure to work with LEGAL 500 2015 I rate everyone we have dealt with as being first class CHAMBERS 2016 Very professional, quick to respond and good at keeping the client informed. LEGAL 500 2015 Clients feel protected to the greatest extent. CHAMBERS 2016
THE COMMONS ACT 2006 REGISTRATION OF RIGHTS OF COMMON Creation A right of common cannot at any time after the commencement of the relevant provision be created over land by virtue of prescription. A right of common may be created over land by way of express grant if:- (a) (b) the land is not registered as a town or village green; and the right is attached to land The creation of a right of common in accordance with the above only has effect if it complies with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide. The creation of a right of common in accordance with the above does not operate at law until on an application under this section:- (a) (b) the right is registered in a register of common land; and if the right is created over land not registered as common land, the land is registered in a register of common land An application under this provision to register the creation of a right of common consisting of a right to graze any animal is to be refused if in the opinion of the commons registration authority the land over which it is created would be unable to sustain the exercise of:- (a) (b) that right; and if the land is already registered as common land, any other rights of common registered as exercisable over the land REGISTRATION OF GREENS: S.15 These provisions came into force 6 th April 2007 and 6 th September 2007 in Wales. Any person may apply to the commons registration authority to register land to which this provision applies as a town or village green. This provision applies where:-
(a) (b) a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years; and they continue to do so at the time of the application Where:- (a) (b) (c) a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, of any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years; they ceased to do so before any time of the application but after the commencement of this provision; and the application is made within the period of one year (or two years in Wales) beginning with the cessation This subsection applies (subject to subsection (5)), where:- (a) (b) (c) a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years; they ceased to do so before the commencement of this section; and the application is made within the period of five years beginning with the cessation referred to above The above does not apply in relation to any land where:- (a) (b) (c) planning permission was granted before 23 June 2006 in respect of the land; construction works were commenced before that date in accordance with that planning permission on the land or any other land in respect of which the permission was granted; and the land:- (i) (ii) has by reason of any works carried out in accordance with that planning permission become permanently unusable by members of the public for the purposes of lawful sports and pastimes; or will by reason of any works proposed to be carried out in accordance with that planning permission become permanently unusable by members of the public for those purposes In determining the period of 20 years there is to be disregarded any period during which access to the land was prohibited to members of the public by reason of any enactment.
R (on the application of Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2010] UKSC 11 - The Supreme Court has reversed the Court of Appeal decision and held that dog walking on a municipal golf course gave rise to a claim for Village Green, in spite of the fact that the walkers gave priority to the golfers. The case involved 18 acres of a local authority owned golf course, comprising a part of a fairway, the first and 18 th holes and the clubhouse. The course had existed from at least the 1920 s until 2002 and was leased to the Cleveland Golf Club. The land was earmarked for a mixed development including 300 houses in conjunction with Persimmon Homes. Four of the locals made a claim that the land should be registered as Village Green based on dog walking and family recreational activities. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, as it was always understood that any pastimes were in deference to the golfers who always had priority. The Supreme Court has now said that this is an irrelevance. The land was being used without force, secrecy or permission for the requisite time period and there was no further requirement in the legislation in relation to deference to others. After this case, large amounts of land where the owner has allowed the locals onto the site, may give rise to Village Green claims. In particular, playing fields may be open to such claims. In Wales, there is also a draft Disposal of Playing Fields (Wales) (Community Involvement) Measure 2010 which requires extensive consultation before the disposal of playing fields. Taylor v Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd and another [2012] EWCA Civ 250 This case concerns 46 acres of grazing land. The owners had put up signs forbidding entry to the land and had also fenced it. Gaps had appeared in the fences and the signs had been vandalised. The Court of Appeal accepted the argument that the court could review previous registrations, and not merely act on appeal from decisions of the Council. They sent the case back to the High Court for decision. It was accepted the owner of the land had stopped putting up signs some time previously, but it was accepted that the locals would have realised that they were trespassing by entering through gaps in the fence. Moreover the landowner had taken reasonable steps to prevent the locals using the land and the registration was removed nine years after it had been made. See also Smith v Brudenell- Bruce (2002) signs merely need to be consistent with the owner s means the resources. See also in relation to public footpaths: Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Oxfordshire County Council 2010 LGR 631. Users of the land ought to have reasonably known that the owner was objecting to their presence by signs. Contrast this with Lewis (above) where signs saying that trespassers were not welcome showed an insufficient intention to bar the users. See also Field Common v Elmbridge Borough Council 2005 where correspondence complaining about user prevented a claim for a public footpath, and Godmanchester Town Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment [2008] 1 AC 221 where a notice was largely ignored but still prevented use as a public footpath.
However, in Adamson v Paddico (267) Ltd and others [2012] EWCA Civ 262 the Court of Appeal refused to de-register a village green where, although the original application was wrong, the landowner had waited several years to make the application. Adamson v Paddico and Taylor v Betterment [2014] UKSC14 have now been heard by the Supreme Court where it was held that a lapse of time is not immaterial in allowing rectification of the register of Town and Village Greens. However, in both of these cases, there was no evidence to show that a significant detriment had occurred and both registrations were removed. BDW Trading Ltd (t/a Barratt Homes) v Spooner (representing the Merton Green Action Group) [2011] EWHC B7 (QB) In this rather startling case, the High Court held that where a local authority had appropriated land for planning purposes under s122 Local Government Act 1972, or s233 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it could then sell off the land free of any registered village green. This is the first case to discuss such a point, but must be of questionable authority. Leeds Group v Leeds City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1447 A claim for Village Green succeeded, although there was not a single, but two, neighbourhoods involved in the claim. The land holder s contention that the claim did not involve a locality within the neighbourhood also failed as the occupants of neighbouring streets showed a degree of cohesiveness. R (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council and Scarborough District Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1373. Here the Judge decided that playing fields which were being maintained as a recreation ground under s80 Housing Act 1936 could not constitute a village green as of right. The Judge accepted Obiter statements given by the House of Lords in R (Beresford) v Sunderland City Council [2003] UKHL 60. This case has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court. In R (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council [2015] UKSC 7 The Newhaven Harbour Improvements Act 1847 gave the port authority power to maintain and improve the harbour. In addition, the Harbour s Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 allowed bye-laws to be passed in relation to the harbour. The authority had passed byelaws allowing access to various parts of the port with conditions, e.g. dogs to be kept on a lead. The locals had for many years been bathing off a beach within the harbour land and claimed that this gave rise to a village green. The Supreme Court has now reversed the court of appeal and held that this was not a village green. Although a beach may be a village green, the bye-laws meant that the user was not as of right but under a licence, see Barkas above. Moreover if a village green claim was allowed then the improvements of the harbour under legislation would not be possible as the surface of the village green cannot be changed and this would be contrary to the 1847 Act, see also BDW v Spooner above.
It was also stated that similar arguments may be made in relation to prescriptive rights generally, see Mills v Silver 1977. The concept of an overriding statutory obligation as recognised in the East Sussex and Barkas cases has now started to cause its own problems. In Lancashire County Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another [2016] EWHC 1238 (Admin) the court accepted that where the land was owned by a Central Government body which was subject to its own legislation a village green claim could not be made. The court also decided that the need for a specific locality was not satisfied as the people using the land must be spread throughout the whole of the locality. Furthermore, the locality had changed over the 20 year period required for a village green claim. It is understood that this case is going to appeal. In Surrey County Council v NHS (2016 unreported) a similar argument was accepted by the judge in that there was overriding statutory obligation in relation to NHS land.
THE GROWTH AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT 2013 The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013. legislation is now in force in England but not in Wales. Most of the Although the majority of the Act proposes amendments to the planning system there are important property implications including restrictions on the registration of town or village greens and business rate revaluation. Section 7 and Schedule 2: Modification or discharge of affordable housing requirements in planning obligations Section 7 proposes to allow an application to be made to the LPA if the affordable housing requirements in an English planning obligation mean that development is not economically viable. The LPA will have the ability to modify, replace, remove or discharge the affordable housing obligation. If the LPA does not modify the planning obligation as requested, or fails to make a determination, within a specified time, there will be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. The Department for Communities and Local Government hope this will kick-start development. This is separate to the consultation on renegotiating section 106 agreements which has just finished. Section 12: Stopping up and diversion of public paths Section 257 of the TCPA 1990 authorises the stopping up or diversion of footpaths or bridleways to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission. Section 12 of the Act proposes amendments to sections 257 and 259 of the TCPA 1990 to enable a stopping up or diversion order to be made in anticipation of planning permission. Section 12 applies to England only. Section 13: Declarations negativing intention to dedicate way as highway Section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980 (HA 1980) allows a landowner to deposit a map and statement with the highway authority, showing admitted public paths, followed by a declaration that the landowner has no intention to allow any other part of the land to become subject to a public right of way. This procedure provides a date from which to reference the lack of intention to dedicate and identifies the land in respect of which the deposit is made.
Section 13 of the Act proposes to amend section 31 of the HA 1980 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the: Form of the statement, map and declaration. Fees to be levied in relation to the deposit of a map and statement and the lodging of a declaration The Secretary of State will also be able to make regulations that prescribe the steps an appropriate council must take in relation to a map, statement, or declaration deposited with it, as well as the manner and time in which such steps must be completed. Section 14 - Registration of town or village green: reduction of section 15(3)(c) period This will allow regulations to reduce the time period of non-use prior to a village green claim from two years to one. It only applies to England. Section 15: Registration of town or village green: statement by owner Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides that anyone can apply to register land as a town or village green (TVG) where "a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years". Use "as of right" means without force, secrecy or permission. Section 13 of the Act proposes to insert a new section 15A in the CA 2006 to allow a landowner in England to deposit a statement and map with the commons registration authority, to bring to an end any period of use "as of right for lawful sports and pastimes on the land". The form of the statement and map will be prescribed by regulations. The regulations can also provide for the TVG statement to be combined with a statement or declaration made to counter rights of way claims under section 31(6) of the HA 1980. Regulations may provide for the TVG statement to refer to a map deposited under section 31(6) of the HA 1980. The aim is to reduce the administrative burden on landowners who, for example, wish to make statements or declarations for both purposes at the same time. Section 13 will also insert into the CA 2006, a new: Section 15A(5), which will allow a landowner to make a statement referring to a map which accompanied an earlier statement, whether or not the landowner is the same person that deposited the earlier statement.
Section 15B, which will require the commons registration authority to keep a register containing prescribed information about deposited statements and maps. Section 16 and Schedule 4: Restrictions on right to register land as town or village green These provisions came into force on 25 April 2013 in England. Section 16 and Schedule 4 of the Act propose to insert a new section 15C and Schedule 1A into the CA 2006, which will exclude the right to apply to register land as a TVG where any specified event related to the past, present or future development of land occurs. These events known as "trigger events" are set out in Schedule 1A. Trigger events include publicity for a planning application, adoption of a development plan and the making of a neighbourhood development plan. Schedule 1A also specifies "terminating events" which correspond to each trigger event and result in the right to apply becoming exercisable again. The exclusion of the right to apply does not affect the accrual of any period of user as of right or prevent any such user ceasing to be as of right. The Secretary of State may by order make provision as to when a trigger event or terminating event has occurred and define circumstances in which the exclusion will not apply. The Secretary of State may also insert additional trigger or terminating events, or amend or omit any trigger or terminating events specified in Schedule 1A. However, any additional trigger or terminating event specified must be an event related to the development of the land. If an application for registration of land as a TVG is made in reliance of section 15(3) of the CA 2006 (where use of the land as of right ceased before the application was submitted), any period during which the right to apply was excluded by section 15C is disregarded for the purpose of calculating the period of two years in which an application must be made. The amendments will be welcomed by developers as TVG applications made after planning permission has been granted create delay and uncertainty. This section applies to England only. Trigger Events The document, Registration of new town or village greens: changes were made on 24 th February 2014 to Schedule 1A (exclusion of Right under section 15) to the Commons Act 2006, assesses the impact of the proposed amendments to the provisions for the registration of town and village greens.
Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 sets out the circumstances in which applications can be made to commons registration authorities to register land as a town or village green. The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 includes provisions that reform aspects of the system for making such applications. Section 16 inserts a new section 15C and Schedule 1A into the Commons Act. Their effect is that the right to apply to register land as a town or village green ceases to apply where a trigger event related to the development of the land occurs, and becomes exercisable again if a corresponding terminating event occurs. The Commons Act as now amended also gives the Secretary of State power, subject to a resolution of each House of Parliament, to amend Schedule 1A including by adding new trigger and terminating events. During the Parliamentary stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Act we announced the government s intention to include certain additional trigger and terminating events in Schedule 1A. The new events are intended to: (a) ensure that the exclusion on town and village green applications lifts in relation to draft local and neighbourhood plans in circumstances where development ceases to be proposed and (b) protect development proposed or permitted by virtue of three matters not already included in Schedule 1A, namely in relation to Local Development Orders, Neighbourhood Development Orders and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992. If a draft development plan does not come into force within 2 years, the trigger event will now terminate. The Planning (Wales) Act 2015 has provision to introduce sections 15 and 16 in Wales is intended to come into force on 1 st April 2017. Section 16 will only prevent village green claims on the grant of planning permission or on production of a development plan and not as in England, publication of a planning application or a draft development plan. Commencement dates for England: 16-25 April 2013 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 20-25 June 2013 Enabling provisions for Regulations for Sections 13 and 15-25 June 2013 Section 21-21 July 2013 Section 14-1 October 2013 Sections 1 and 2 come into force on 1 October 2013 We are currently awaiting relevant dates in Wales.
LAND HELD BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES The Local Authority is a trustee of public facilities such as: Open spaces, e.g. playing fields, public gardens, commons and allotments. Cultural facilities, e.g art galleries and libraries Other civic buildings, e.g town halls and civic centres. It is important to know whether the Local Authority is a charity or not as this will affect how the Local Authority can deal with the land. The governing documents may specify the charity as a trustee. Transferring Assets The general principle is that property transferred must continue to be charitable property and continue to be used for similar purposes. If land is not designated land, i.e. for a particular purpose, disposal is a simpler process and checks should be made to see if the governing documents allow the Local Authority to transfer. If land is designated land as to its use this may require a Scheme from the Charity Commissioners. Disposal of Charitable Land This will equally apply to sale, lease, or mortgage. The Local Authority must act in the best interest of the charity and not necessarily in the best interest of the locality. Sale as an undervalue under general disposal consent may not be appropriate. A valuer s report should always be obtained and the land sufficiently marketed unless the valuer s report suggests otherwise. If there is a potential for conflicts of interest the Charity Commissioner should be consulted and a Scheme may be appropriate. If the land is not held for a specific purpose then sale should comply with the Charities Act 2011 but unless there is a conflict of interest or sales to a connected person a Scheme may not be appropriate. If the land is held for a specific purpose any disposal must solely take into accout that purpose and a referral to the Charity Commissioners and a Scheme may be appropriate. Granting of licences, e.g. recreational grounds for sporting purposes must not hinder the charitable purpose. In Bath & North East Somerset Council v The Attorney General [2003] EWHC
1623 the recreation ground in Bath had been left in a bequest to the Council s predecessor for the purpose of providing open space to the people of Bath. Not realising that the land was held on charitable trust a 75 year lease of part of the land was granted to Bath Rugby Football Club and leisure centre and car park built on another part of the land. In 2002 it was held that this land was charitable and the above activities in breach of the charitable purpose. The Charity Commissioners intervened and imposed the scheme which was then modified by the charity tribunal on appeal. The Council s trustees were replaced and it was determined that the leisure centre would not be rebuilt when its life expectancy had come to an end. This case was due to go to court in July 2016 but it is understood that it has been delayed.
Copyright Davitt Jones Bould ( DJB ) and Richard Snape 2016 All rights reserved by the author and DJB. The text of this publication, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, storage in an information retrieval system, or otherwise, without prior permission of DJB. While DJB has taken all reasonable care in the preparation of this publication DJB makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this publication and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions from the publication or the consequences thereof. Products and services that are referred to in this publication may be either trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher and author/s make no claim to these trademarks. Published September 2016 DISCLAIMER This oral presentation including answers given in any question and answer session ( the presentation ) and this accompanying paper are intended for general purposes only and should not be viewed as a comprehensive summary of the subject matters covered. Nothing said in this presentation or contained in this paper constitutes legal or other professional advice and no warranty is given nor liability accepted for the contents of the presentation or the accompanying paper. Richard Snape and Davitt Jones Bould will not accept responsibility for any loss suffered in consequence of reliance on information contained in the presentation or paper. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise without the prior written permission of Davitt Jones Bould.. Davitt Jones Bould is the trading name of Davitt Jones Bould Limited. Registered in England (company registration No 6155025) Registered Office: 12-14 The Crescent, Taunton, TA1 4EB. A list of Directors is available for inspection at the registered office. This firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Davitt Jones Bould and Richard Snape 2016
Contacts Main Contacts Madeleine F Davitt, Managing Director Central Government T: 020 7870 7500 M:07904 677 739 E: madeleine.davitt@djblaw.co.uk Sophie Davies, Account Manager Property Companies T: 020 7870 7500 M:07812 677 645 E: sophie.davies@djblaw.co.uk Sue McCormick, Account Manager Local Authorities T: 01823 328 084 M: 07535 655 060 E: sue.mccormick@djblaw.co.uk Sophie Anderson, Client Relationship Manager Central Government T: 020 7870 7500 M: 07812 677 647 E: sophie.anderson@djblaw.co.uk Offices London 23 Hanover Square, London W1S 1JB Birmingham 2 Snow Hill, Birmingham, B4 6GA Manchester 2 nd Floor 3 Hardman Square Manchester, M3 3EB Taunton 12-14 The Crescent, Taunton, TA1 4EB Peter Allinson, Chief Executive T: 0161 669 4800 M: 07904 677 773 E: peter.allinson@djblaw.co.uk Geoffrey Lander, Non-Executive Director T: 020 7870 7500 M: 0777 617 2000 E: Geoffrey.lander@djblaw.co.uk